MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
May 6, 2005
Present: Martin Jackson, Jo Crane, Ross Singleton, Andrea Hatch, Kate Sojda, Betsy
Kirkpatick (acting chair, in Fred Hamel’s absence), Houston Dougharty, Ann Wilson,
Ken Clark, Martins Linauts, Geoff Block, Bill Kupinse, Brad Tomhave, Bob Matthews,
Maria Sampen, John Finney, Andreas Madlung, Mirelle Cohen, Kathryn McMillan
(student), David Moore (acting scribe, in Jack Roundy’s absence).
1. Minutes: Minutes of the April 22 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Finney made a special announcement regarding the two
student members of the committee who are graduating this year from the ASC as well
as the University, Kate Sojda and Andrea Hatch. Finney presented a special
“diploma” (signed by all the members of the ASC who were present) honoring Sojda for
her faithful service to the ASC for the past 3 years. Dougherty presented an
additional gift to Sojda on behalf of the committee as another token of the committee’s
appreciation for her service, noting that she was only the second student member in
UPS history to have participated in the ASC for 3 years. Sojda expressed her
appreciation to the committee and noted that she had enjoyed participating as a
student. Finney presented Hatch a diploma for her service as well, highlighting that
student members of only 1 year duration do not typically receive such formal
recognition but that an exception was made in her case in light of the way in which
Hatch had so positively distinguished herself by her faithful service to the committee.
The committee members gave both students a big round of applause.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Tomhave announced that there had been 2
petitions subcommittee meetings since the last ASC meeting on April 22. The actions
of the subcommittee are reported below:
Date
4/27/05
5/04/05
YTD
Approved
4 (2 PPT)
5 (3 PPT)
180 (29 R + 85 PPT)
Denied
1
2
37
No Action
0
0
3
Total
5
7
220
Tomhave announced that the meeting on May 4 concluded the regular petitions
meetings for spring semester 2005. The next probation/dismissal meeting will be
held June 1 at 9:00 a.m.; there will be additional petitions at this meeting to attend to
as well. Tomhave distributed a sheet listing the petition meeting schedule over the
summer, noting that the committee relies upon volunteers for the committee to staff
the summer meetings (which he believes will all be held in Wheelock). The scheduled
meetings for the summer are as follows: (1) Thursday, June 9 at 9:00 am; (2) Monday,
June 20 at 2:30 pm; (3) Thursday, June 30 at 9:00 am; (4) Tuesday, August 9 at 9:00
am; (5) Wednesday, August 17 at 9:00 am; (6) Thursday, August 25 at 1:00 pm; and
(7) Friday, September 2 at 1:00 pm. Tomhave requested that members examine the
summer petitions schedule (on which tentative assignments have been made) and
notify him by email or on a hard copy of the schedule itself with dates that members
can or can not attend.
4. Proposal to Eliminate WF Grade: Acting Chair Kirkpatrick initiated the
continued discussion of the proposal to eliminate the WF grade, reminding the
committee of the original charge from the Faculty Senate to attempt to increase the
consistency with which the W/WF policy is currently implemented by faculty. The
active motion still under discussion is to eliminate the WF and move the deadline
for withdrawal to a date two weeks before the last day of classes, after which A-F
grading only would be allowed.
Before opening the floor for discussion, Kirkpatrick read an email message from
Dean Bartanen (forwarded to Kirkpatrick by Chair Hamel), which expressed her
concerns about the ASC’s present proposal to change the university’s withdrawal
policy to one in which students would be able to withdraw without record (with a “W”)
until the 12th week of the semester, after which students would be unable to
withdraw. An electronic copy of this message is appended to the minutes.
In sum, Dean Bartanen indicated that her concerns about the ASC’s present motion
were based on her experience both in student and academic affairs. The specific
nature of her concerns centered on two primary issues: (1) Dean Bartanen asserted
that the proposed amendment to the university’s withdrawal policy would unfairly
punish good students who nevertheless experience unfortunate circumstances
beyond their control in the final weeks of the semester (after the proposed 12-week
deadline), particularly in those cases when the extenuating circumstances are
significant but not catastrophic enough to utilize the Emergency Administrative
Withdrawal or Medical Withdrawal options. Bartanen stressed the advantages of the
current withdrawal policy, with the faculty prerogative to grant a “W” after week 12 in
the face of extenuating circumstances outside of the student’s control, to deal with
such situations. (2) Dean Bartanen also expressed her concern that the proposed
amendment, by allowing students to “walk away” from a course without academic
penalty until the 12th week of the semester, would diminish student responsibility for
academic work and make it more likely that students would choose their academic
schedule based on which classes would allow them to maximize their GPA. Bartanen
also expressed concern that the proposed amendment could enable academic
malingering and noted her fear that inequities could result from this amendment, in
that those students with greater financial means would be more able to employ the
strategy of withdrawing from courses late in the semester, given that under the
proposed policy, a purely financial rather than academic penalty would apply (namely
the loss of tuition for registered units). In closing her message, Dean Bartanen
suggested that rather than amending the university’s current withdrawal policy,
improved consistency of implementation might better be achieved through greater
clarification of the current policy itself.
Following the reading of Dean Bartanen’s message, Kirkpatrick opened the floor for
discussion. Matthews raised the question whether this issue should be decided this
late in the semester and suggested that instead it be placed on the agenda for the
next academic year. Crane questioned whether the amended policy, if passed, would
take effect next fall. Kirkpatrick stated that the policy may not take effect at all, even
if the motion on the table passes, noting that the motion may need to go to the full
faculty for a vote. Several other committee members noted that the timeline for
implementation of any new policy would certainly be much later than the fall of 2005.
Matthews suggested that this fact reinforced his belief that is would make more sense
to defer this discussion to the fall.
Cohen requested that the motion be read again by Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick
reiterated the motion, as stated in the April 22 minutes: [To] eliminate the WF and
move the deadline for withdrawal to a date two weeks before the last day of
classes, after which A-F grading only would be allowed.
Jackson stated that he would need to vote against the motion, because he felt that
the 12-week deadline for the graded-only option was simply too late in the semester.
If the motion went to a vote and failed to carry, however, Jackson stated that he
would want to explore other options of revising the withdrawal policy to improve the
consistency of faculty implementation. Sojda agreed that the 12-week deadline was
too late but expressed her support of the A-F graded-only option.
Singleton asked Finney whether exceptions to the new policy, if passed, could be
addressed through petitions, in order to deal with situations like Dean Bartanen
described in her email where students experience extenuating circumstances late in
the semester. Finney noted the problem that grade changes are not currently
petitionable, so this would represent “unchartered waters,” at least in those cases
where students wish to petition the change to “W” for letter grades already submitted
by their professors. Singleton stated his concern that UPS is “out of step” with nearly
every other comparable institution that the ASC examined, in regards to its
withdrawal policy; he questioned how other schools deal with the types of concerns
raised by Bartanen. Singleton stated that there must be a mechanism for dealing
with exceptions to the policy, and he expressed his concern that the current
withdrawal policy at UPS discourages students after midterm to work with professors
to salvage a class and “turn things around,” an outcome that he felt runs counter to
the purpose of assigning grades at midterm. Under the current policy, said
Singleton, if a student makes an unsuccessful attempt to turn things around in a
class, the professor would need to assign a “WF,” at least if the professor abides by
the policy as outlined in the Logger.
Finney raised his concern that the proposed revision in the withdrawal policy
decreases the incentive for students to “turn things around” in a class if they can
“walk away” from a class without penalty. Singleton responded by expressing his
concern about the overly punitive effect of the WF, suggesting that this discourages
students from attempting to salvage a class.
Matthews reiterated the concern that the timing [of the automatic withdrawal with a
W] of the current withdrawal policy. Four weeks is simply too short of a period, he
said, for student or faculty to make an informed decision about how the student is
doing in the class and what grade would be appropriate to assign. Cohen noted that
some academic departments have a lot of graded assignments early in a semester,
while others (including her own classes) have very few graded assignments before
midterm, making it difficult to obtain a good assessment of how the student is doing
early in the semester. She suggested that this may be one reason why the current
policy is inequitably applied. This, Cohen said, highlights a problem with the policy
itself and suggests the need for revision.
Tomhave indicated that the midterm grade is meant to give feedback to students
regarding whether he/she is not only adequately performing in the class but also
applying him/herself to the class. He gave an example of how the W/WF policy is
interpreted very differently by different instructors via a recent case in which a
student had been performing adequately in a class until he stopped attending the
class entirely for a month. Eventually, the student withdrew from the class, but when
it came to assigning a grade for the class, the instructor argued that the student
should receive a “W” since the student had been passing until the point when he or
she stopped attending class. Sojda noted how this example illustrates the different
potential definitions of what is “passing” inherent in the current withdrawal policy.
For example, does a student need to be passing on the date when he/she actually
withdraws from a class to be eligible to receive a “W,” or simply passing up to the
point when he or she stops attending class due to extenuating or other
circumstances? Jackson suggested the need to try and clarify how “passing” and
“failing” are defined and distinguished in the withdrawal policy.
Dougherty expressed his primary desire that there be increased clarity for students
in terms of the consequences for their decisions about pursuing withdrawal from
classes at different points in the semester, highlighting that this is where he has
witnessed tremendous inequity in his role in student affairs, in that some professors
are far more lenient in assigning a “W” versus “WF” than others.
Kirkpatrick noted that, following the ASC’s discussion on these matters, she had
come to recognize the advantages of flexibility afforded by the current withdrawal
policy, adding that she appreciated the prerogative to make decisions about whether
to assign a “W” or a “WF” for a particular case.
Madlung suggested that perhaps Bartanen’s concerns could be addressed through
clarification of the current withdrawal policy, rather than a major revision or
elimination of the current policy. Finney added that very little time had been spent
by the committee thus far discussing possible strategies for improving the consistency
with which the current policy could be implemented [as opposed to discussing
changes to the policy as a way of improving consistency). Singleton stated that there
are 2 aspects of the current policy that are susceptible to inconsistent application: (1)
decisions about what constitutes “passing” and (2) decisions regarding what
constitutes “extenuating circumstances.”
Sampen stated that her primary concern with the present motion is that it eliminates
the option of assigning a “WF” for those cases in which students essentially abandon
a course. She indicated that she would like to retain flexibility in the withdrawal
policy while also keeping students academically accountable.
Kirkpatrick voiced her opposition to the motion to revise the withdrawal policy and
stated that she would prefer modifying the current W/WF policy rather than
eliminating it.
At this point in the discussion, Finney proposed that a subcommittee be formed to
meet over the summer to address the issues that had been raised in the discussion.
Matthews noted the advantage of such an action, in that this would allow time to
meet with Dean Bartanen and discuss in more detail her concerns about changing the
current withdrawal policy.
Kirkpatrick called the question, bringing the motion to a vote. After the motion was
restated, votes were cast by a show of hands with the following results: The M failed
to carry with 12 voting against the motion, 3 voting for the motion, and 4
abstentions.
Following the vote, M/S/P to form subcommittee with the charge of reviewing the
University’s current withdrawal policy and suggesting ways of decreasing the
inequitable application of said policy. Tomhave, Matthews, and Kirkpatrick
volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. Matthews agreed to chair this
subcommittee. Kirkpatrick noted that if other ASC members are willing to join the
subcommittee, they can notify Matthews.
5. Re-evaluation of Class Scheduling with Respect to Approved Time Blocks for
Class Offerings.
Kirpatrick began the discussion of this topic summarizing notes from Chair Hamel
about the charge that he had received to evaluate class scheduling. Kirkpatrick read
several faculty comments from a message that had been forwarded to her by Hamel
about concerns that faculty have about the fact that there is no single protected time
for faculty meetings as well as the potential for class conflicts for students and several
other perceived constraints of the current system of class scheduling. Finney noted
that one source of concern about the current system revolves around the T/Th time
blocks. He noted that these time blocks re-emerged with the idea that there would be
added positions at the University [which did not occur] and with it a need for
increased use of the physical plant. However, he suggested that the issue up for
discussion about scheduling extends more broadly than simply the topic of T/Th time
blocks. Finney suggested the need to discuss this issue at greater length.
Kirkpatrick read Hamel’s conclusions in his message on this issue, in which he
suggested that either a subcommittee be formed to address this issue, or that the ASC
move to defer this issue to next year’s agenda. Cohen felt that the issue should be
more fully discussed before any action was taken to form a subcommittee to deal with
the issue. Given the apparent consensus among the committee with this notion, it
was decided to defer this agenda item until the fall.
As the 5:00 hour was upon us, the decision to adjourn was reached by acclamation.
Respectfully submitted by the (acting) ASC scribe,
David Moore
From: Kris Bartanen [mailto:bartanen@ups.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:05 PM
To: 'Fred Hamel'
Cc: 'Betsy Kirkpatrick'; 'John Finney'
Subject: Withdrawal policy
Dear Fred,
I write out of concern about the Academic Standards Committee proposal
to change the university's withdrawal policy to one in which students
would be able to withdraw without record ("W") until the 12th week of
the term, but would not be able to withdraw at all after that point.
My concerns are based both in academic and student affairs experience.
There are occasions when, unfortunately, a student does face a
situation beyond their control with respect to a class that warrants a
withdrawal; sometimes those events happen after week twelve. Granted,
a student may withdraw entirely from school under the Emergency
Administrative Withdrawal or Medical Withdrawal options for a
catastrophic event, but one can imagine a situation in which a
significant, but less than catastrophic incident occurs that strongly
affects a student short of having to withdraw entirely (a harassment
incident, a peer suicide, etc.). To eliminate the possibility for a
student to withdraw from a single course or two, such that they might
be able to successfully finish two or three others, seems a harsh
solution to the concern of faculty inconsistency that the ASC is trying
to address. To remove faculty judgment and prerogative to grant a WP
after week 12 seems detrimental to good students to whom fate might
cast an unfortunate blow in the closing weeks of the semester.
The current policy, which requires a WP or WF grade if a student
withdraws after the 4th week of classes, is also preferable because it
enforces greater student responsibility for academic work. If any
student can "try on" a course and walk away without academic penalty
through week twelve, we would potentially feed rather than curtail
tendencies among those so inclined toward a greater "consumerist"
approach to education -- "shopping" if you will for the collection of
courses that will produce the best take-away product (aka the higher
grade point average). If a student can "blow off" a course and walk
away without academic penality through week twelve, there is potential
to lose ground in our four-year graduation rate and to enable academic
malingering in ways that may be of ethical concern. I think of
instances in which a student registers for four units, walks away
semester after semester with a 2.0 with only one or two units actually
completed, paying a huge tuition bill (because he or she is paying for
registered, not completed units) when--in fact--the student really is
not interested in (or, perhaps, capable of) completing academic work of
the level Puget Sound expects. Both of these patterns, I fear, are
ones that students of greater means can employ and students of lesser
or little means cannot. I understand that some of this same concern is
what contributed to the issue of inconsistent application of the
Withdrawal Policy coming to your attention in the first place.
However, the proposed remedy (W for anyone through week twelve, and no
one thereafter) seems worse than the reported ill (some faculty
inconsistency in application of the withdrawal policy).
I hope that the Academic Standards Committee will find its way to
affirming the current withdrawal policy. If implementation of the
policy needs clarification -- e.g., clarifying that our expectation is
that student work will be evaluated throughout the term (not just
toward the end) and that, if a student is failing the course, then he
or she receives a WF for a withdrawal -- then perhaps we can address
clarification without removing the benefit of faculty judgment and
prerogative.
Thank you for listening,
Kris Bartanen